|
mojo1701a posted:And yet, if you add one letter, it becomes Polish for "in the trash." I'm surprised he's not trying to use the White Power Facebook group Britain First given his readers by and large nie mozina mowic po polsku. Moon languages don't go over well with the rural English speakers, even if they are white.
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 04:57 |
|
|
Dreylad posted:I'm at a loss of what else to tell you or how to dispel the notion that there the government would be able to influence the ORPP given how it is being set up. Do CEOs not greatly influence their organization? Liberals choose the ORPP's CEO and thus influence the ORPP. Is there anything they could do right now to influence it more? E: I'll just agree to disagree, it's annoying to argue so much about something that doesn't exist. Postess with the Mostest fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Feb 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
jm20 posted:I'm surprised he's not trying to use the White Power Facebook group Britain First given his readers by and large nie mozina mowic po polsku. Moon languages don't go over well with the rural English speakers, even if they are white.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
THC posted:Well I mean Ezra's Jewish so he can't just identify himself as a white supremacist. That might raise a few eyebrows. He just promotes white supremacist rhetoric as it pertains to Muslims (and gypsies, and feminists, and liberals, first nations, etc, etc) You think his fans have any idea he's Jewish? This is a serious question.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
Ezra is a stain, but I still support his antics with regards to the human rights tribunal, which is a ridiculous creation and deserves to be laughed at on a regular basis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
jm20 posted:You think his fans have any idea he's Jewish? This is a serious question. His fans are dumb but I don't think they're too dumb to realize that Ezra Levant is jewish.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:Do CEOs not greatly influence their organization? Liberals choose the ORPP's CEO and thus influence the ORPP. Is there anything they could do right now to influence it more? The CEO has a fiduciary responsibility to the plan like the board, it's a bit more involved than a normal CEO position, and it's unclear whether or not he will stay after the corporation has been established. Also the plan exists, as it is currently being setup and there is legislation already in place. I'm using the basis of that, along with existing pension law for my arguments, not imagination land's pension plan fantasy world. I'll concede that if anyone can screw this up, despite the safeguards put in place by successive governments of various political stripes, it'd be the OLP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
http://cbc.ca/1.3452562 Haha, gently caress taxi drivers and especially gently caress Montreal taxi drivers. I hope uber drives them into poverty, they way they're acting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
THC posted:Well I mean Ezra's Jewish so he can't just identify himself as a white supremacist. That might raise a few eyebrows. He just promotes white supremacist rhetoric as it pertains to Muslims (and gypsies, and feminists, and liberals, first nations, etc, etc) Compared to just about everyone else in the world, the Ashkenazim look remarkably white to your average North American racist. Hating the Jews is a very unpopular standpoint in the mainstream North American conservative worldview. e: I mean obviously that wouldn't fly with the really hardcore neo-Nazi white supremacists but I'm not sure there's enough of them around to fill a stadium.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
PT6A posted:http://cbc.ca/1.3452562 Isn't it ironic that the Uber drivers are not only driving taxi drivers into poverty, but themselves as well
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
ZShakespeare posted:Oh please you'd be tripping all over yourselves to scream the loudest if it were the wildrose banning some poo poo like rabble.ca or thetyee Excerpted from here: http://albertapolitics.ca/2016/02/ezra-levant-the-pied-piper-of-right-wing-nuttery-has-the-mainstream-media-singing-his-tune/ Rebel Media claims that one of its freelancers was thrown out of a government “lock-up” at which advance technical information about the royalty review was made available to journalists, and that another was denied access to a meeting of stakeholders to which, government sources say, no media were admitted. The circumstances are murky and several well-known mainstream media journalists who were there and presumably know what happened have been conspicuously silent about what actually went on. Alas, I wasn’t there, so I can’t really say. But I’d bet that if I’d tried to get into the same stakeholder meeting room as did Sheila Gunn Reid, one of The Rebel’s reporters, I would have been tossed too. In his piece yesterday, Mr. Gunter stated that “the NDP government doesn’t question the legitimacy (nor should it) of online lefty journalists such as David Climenhaga of the NDP-friendly Rabble.ca or Dave Cournoyer, a communications advisor for the United Nurses of Alberta, whose Daveberta.ca blog is a must-read on Edmonton and Alberta politics.” So, for example, like Ms. Gunn Reid, I was also on what Mr. Gunter termed the “no-go list” for the news conference with Ms. Notley and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The policy, I understand, came from the Prime Minister’s Office. Unlike The Rebel’s reporter, I chose not to whine about it. Mr. Gunter, it must be noted, didn’t bother to check with me about any of this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
PT6A posted:http://cbc.ca/1.3452562 Assault and vandalism are not trivial offenses. If he sped off and injured one I doubt he would even be found at fault.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
Lars Blitzer posted:Excerpted from here: http://albertapolitics.ca/2016/02/ezra-levant-the-pied-piper-of-right-wing-nuttery-has-the-mainstream-media-singing-his-tune/ Ah Mr. Gunter, the Canadian embodiment of FYGM.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
I've never read the rebel and i only just learned who jj macullogh is like 3 months ago because he's a homosexual who's a raging conservative rear end in a top hat. Stop posting or talking about these assholes because it's giving them page hits and nobody wants that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
Hey CAPP, I recall BC has two islands off the coast that are in the way of where Enbridge wanted to put their Northern Gateway terminal. CANADA'S ENERGY CITIZENS (now with less Vancouver Island opposition!) 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
That maps is also missing many other major features of Canada.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:The CEO has a fiduciary responsibility to the plan like the board, it's a bit more involved than a normal CEO position, and it's unclear whether or not he will stay after the corporation has been established. So does an amendment like this fall under existing pension law or imagination land pension law? You don't think this is the Ontario Government attempting to influence or encourage Ontario pensions to invest in Ontario public infrastructure? quote:http://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/view.do?postingId=15742&language=en Actually that PDF is kind of neat quote:12.Public Infrastructure If the OLP sold stuff in that list like OLG and OPG privately to the ORPP, that would be above board and legal right? Government sells OLG privately to ORPP for $1b. ORPP pays OLP with $1b of ORPP contributor's money. ORPP (Saad Rafi) now controls OLG and pensioners just paid another $1b for something they used to own.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
I'm having trouble seeing the problem with that outcome, other than that it seems like a really convoluted way to lock up a good and sustainable revenue stream for the pension fund.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Ezra is a stain, but I still support his antics with regards to the human rights tribunal, which is a ridiculous creation and deserves to be laughed at on a regular basis. The thing about the Human Rights tribunals is they do lots of good work. Its just the exceptionally stupid cases you hear about in the media. Frankly, if all those 'good' and dumb cases weren't taken to the provincial HRTs they would just end up clogging our civil court systems. So even if you think the Tribunals are dumb, there is still a very pragmatic argument for their existence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:I'm having trouble seeing the problem with that outcome, other than that it seems like a really convoluted way to lock up a good and sustainable revenue stream for the pension fund. It's a hypothetical, but you don't see a problem with backdoor privatization of public assets by way of selling Ontarians something they already own?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:So does an amendment like this fall under existing pension law or imagination land pension law? You don't think this is the Ontario Government attempting to influence or encourage Ontario pensions to invest in Ontario public infrastructure? If the amendment specifically targeted ORPP only, yes it would. But it doesn't, and there are a half a dozen medium-to-big pension plans in this province that will also benefit from it. Ikantski posted:
It would only happen if those particular companies would yield good returns for ORPP. Pensions love infrastructure because they're ong-term, low-risk investments and they usually have enough cash to splash around. It wouldn't be Saad Rafi's decision, however, and trying to imply he would own OLG is disingenuous. As the article said a few pages ago, courting infrastructure investment doesn't mean coercing infrastructure investment. infernal machines posted:It's a hypothetical, but you don't see a problem with backdoor privatization of public assets by way of selling Ontarians something they already own? See, I think that's a fair criticism. Not "and therefore the ORPP (and its investments) will be corrupt and under the direct influence of the Ontario Liberal government." Dreylad fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Feb 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:If the amendment specifically targeted ORPP only, yes it would. But it doesn't, and there are a half a dozen medium-to-big pension plans in this province that will also benefit from it. My question was about Ontario pensions, not the ORPP. Your answer isn't logical though. If I'm influencing A, B and C that means I'm influencing A. And you're right, the pension plans will benefit from it but to the detriment of the taxpayers who currently benefit from the revenue the province brings in from our low risk, long term investments. Dreylad posted:It wouldn't be Saad Rafi's decision, however, and trying to imply he would own OLG is disingenuous. Fine, it would be somebody hired by Rafi. Maybe David Peterson is available? Any McGuintys looking for work? You're right though, there's no proof at all that Saad Rafi as the CEO would be picking and choosing investments or even that that would be a bad thing. Under my little tinfoil hat scenario here, that isn't required though. The OLP can go to ORPP and say "Hey, OLG makes $2b a year, we need to run a surplus this year, we'll sell it to you for $10b" and any responsible decision maker at ORPP would pretty much be obligated to say yes, correct? Jordan7hm posted:I'm having trouble seeing the problem with that outcome, other than that it seems like a really convoluted way to lock up a good and sustainable revenue stream for the pension fund. You're taking a low risk, long term investment that provides revenue (that pays for hospitals and schools and jails and stuff) to all Ontarians and selling it to a subset (let's say 66% will contribute to ORPP) of medium and high earners. The province gets a short term cash infusion, the medium/high earners get much better long term returns. The better the deal the ORPP gets, the worse deal all Ontarians get. In the long term, everybody has to pick up the tab for the revenue that the province has lost, either through cuts to services, spiraling privatization or higher taxes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:You're taking a low risk, long term investment that provides revenue (that pays for hospitals and schools and jails and stuff) to all Ontarians and selling it to a subset (let's say 66% will contribute to ORPP) of medium and high earners. The province gets a short term cash infusion, the medium/high earners get much better long term returns. The better the deal the ORPP gets, the worse deal all Ontarians get. In the long term, everybody has to pick up the tab for the revenue that the province has lost, either through cuts to services, spiraling privatization or higher taxes. It's also worth noting that in this scenario there is no way to recapture the privatized portion either, at least not without further soaking Ontarians, since the Province would be paying to buy back its own asset at a rate that must be competitive with private offers. If the ORPP decides to divest themselves of their portion of OLG, they can't offer the Province a preferential rate. infernal machines fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Feb 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:I'm going to pick on you because I know you're better informed that most people here: what's the issue with the ORPP in comparison to CPP, a program that was designed and implemented in an era that was far more sympathetic to social democratic policies. I wasn't really speaking specifically to the ORPP I was talking in more general terms about the inadequacy of government economic policy. Even assuming that the ORPP works exactly as advertised it can't really make up for a lack of stable jobs offering decent pay. It's a band-aid solution for a much deeper economic problem that have more to do with our trade agreements and status as an economy dominated by branch plants and resource extraction industries. If anything, it looks like part of how the pension plan will work is by simply shifting around government assets, selling them off to a pension fund that is likely to be controlled on one level or another by a Liberal party functionary. Instead of following the tired-and-true method of the past, using general tax revenue to fund universal social programs that would reduce people's dependence on a dysfunctional market system we have a government with a really awful track record trying to shift around assets that we, the people of Ontario, already own, in such a way that they can fool people into thinking they have more money. The pension itself may not be bad insofar as it raises the savings rate for people near retirement, but it's not going to address the deeper underlying issues, it may be a net cost to the province in terms of revenue and assets, and it could end up being an opportunity cost in terms of taking the place of more effective government policies. But, as I think the last few paragraphs make clear, my reservations have more to do with a general disdain for neoliberal economics and the OLP. Most of what I'm saying is vague enough that it could be applied to most government economic policy these days. Dreylad posted:See, I think that's a fair criticism. Not "and therefore the ORPP (and its investments) will be corrupt and under the direct influence of the Ontario Liberal government." The thing is we're talking about a relatively small subset of people with shared interests and relationships that are essentially impossible to monitor. How exactly do you legislate against Saad Rafi and Andrew Olivier having a casual conversation about the ORPP's investment plan over a couple beers on a dock in Muskoka, or over a plate of foie gras at Scaramouche? Obviously government laws and regulations will put some limits on how blatant this kind of backdoor influence can be but in practice there's a huge amount of leeway for government bureaucrats and OLP functionaries to meet during their own time and talk about whatever they want. And based on an almost endless list of examples we know that this kind of behaviour is baked right into the culture of the OLP at the highest levels.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Michelle Rempel introduced this motion in the House.quote:That, given Canada and Israel share a long history of friendship as well as economic and diplomatic relations, the House reject the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which promotes the demonization and delegitimization of the State of Israel, and call upon the government to condemn any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups or individuals to promote the BDS movement, both here at home and abroad. Liberals voting in favour 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Michelle Rempel introduced this motion in the House. Wow. Way to make Mulroney look good Liberals. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Speaking of how progressive the Liberal party is, how are the changes to C-51 coming? Does the law on the books still criminalize dissent? Alright then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Michelle Rempel introduced this motion in the House. This seems more like an indictment of the Canadian political establishment generally. The NDP was bad on Israel under Layton and seemingly indistinguishable from any other party under Mulcair. Last election we let a homophone run under the party banner while kicking out people who had at some point in the past made critical comments about Israel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Weed: still loving illegal
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
I can't wait to be arrested for thinking differently
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Helsing posted:This seems more like an indictment of the Canadian political establishment generally. The NDP was bad on Israel under Layton and seemingly indistinguishable from any other party under Mulcair. Last election we let a homophone run under the party banner while kicking out people who had at some point in the past made critical comments about Israel. Yeah, no political party in North America that actually gains power or wants to gain power will ever take Israel's withered, genocidal dick out of its mouth, so it's best to just make peace with it and bang your head against a wall.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Fried Watermelon posted:I can't wait to be arrested for thinking differently Everyone that posts here will be rounded up and sent to work in the Realtor Mines of Mordor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Helsing posted:This seems more like an indictment of the Canadian political establishment generally. The NDP was bad on Israel under Layton and seemingly indistinguishable from any other party under Mulcair. Last election we let a homophone run under the party banner while kicking out people who had at some point in the past made critical comments about Israel. Those awful homophones. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
I don't know why anyone gives a poo poo about what Canada says it thinks about Israel. Our opinion will be the same as that of the US forever and ever on this issue, there's nothing to be gained by admitting that our closest ally props up this worthless regime that takes constant advantage of them and openly wants to eliminate an entire ethnic group.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Health Services posted:Those awful homophones. Hey man, if two words are pronounced the same then they should mean the same thing. That's just common sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:My question was about Ontario pensions, not the ORPP. Your answer isn't logical though. If I'm influencing A, B and C that means I'm influencing A. And you're right, the pension plans will benefit from it but to the detriment of the taxpayers who currently benefit from the revenue the province brings in from our low risk, long term investments. This is getting pedantic. There is a difference between providing incentives to one pension plan versus providing it to all of them. Also I never said "influence"! There you go again. quote:Fine, it would be somebody hired by Rafi. Maybe David Peterson is available? Any McGuintys looking for work? You're right though, there's no proof at all that Saad Rafi as the CEO would be picking and choosing investments or even that that would be a bad thing. Under my little tinfoil hat scenario here, that isn't required though. The OLP can go to ORPP and say "Hey, OLG makes $2b a year, we need to run a surplus this year, we'll sell it to you for $10b" and any responsible decision maker at ORPP would pretty much be obligated to say yes, correct? No, that doesn't appear to be Rafi's area of responsibility. I imagine that might be a decision Susan Jenah or Richard Nesbitt might make. As for your second question, that's something to talk to an actuary or an investment analyst working at ORPP about, since they're the ones assessing those kinds of investments for the fund. Dreylad fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Feb 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Michelle Rempel introduced this motion in the House. I am beginning to feel like perhaps I was right to distrust the Liberals
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I wasn't really speaking specifically to the ORPP I was talking in more general terms about the inadequacy of government economic policy. Even assuming that the ORPP works exactly as advertised it can't really make up for a lack of stable jobs offering decent pay. It's a band-aid solution for a much deeper economic problem that have more to do with our trade agreements and status as an economy dominated by branch plants and resource extraction industries. I don't think that's really the stated goal of ORPP though. And no one policy is going to be able to address the deeper economic problems concerning our trade agreements and our dutch disease. quote:If anything, it looks like part of how the pension plan will work is by simply shifting around government assets, selling them off to a pension fund that is likely to be controlled on one level or another by a Liberal party functionary. Instead of following the tired-and-true method of the past, using general tax revenue to fund universal social programs that would reduce people's dependence on a dysfunctional market system we have a government with a really awful track record trying to shift around assets that we, the people of Ontario, already own, in such a way that they can fool people into thinking they have more money. There has definitely been a neoliberal shift in how national pension plans like CPP have approached investing that reflects the growing lifespan of its members and the growing cost of living without any increase in real wages over the last 30 years, and that has meant that pension plans have been able to invest in public assets. I still think it's disingenuous to characterize ORPP being under the control of a Liberal party functionary when the organization is much larger than Rafi, and we have real, concrete examples of pension plans in places far more corrupt than Ontario's petty corruption scandals - like Quebec - where the plan has provided for people, more or less, as long as CPP has. I definitely feel torn about the investment policy, on one hand government assets shouldn't be sold off for short-term revenue, that much is obvious. But if they're being sold off anyway, it's probably better that they end up in the hands of a pension company that provides retirement savings to Ontarians than a private corporation. Again, that's not ideal, and it still leaves Ontario vulnerable to have its infrastructure compromised in any number of ways. But in a more general sense we have a clear expansion of a government program, built on the same program established over 40 years ago to help combat poverty. It's correct to be suspicious of the motives of the party enacting it, but at what point does the perfect become the enemy of the good? Would this program be better if the conservatives were enacting it? The NDP? Do we support parties that will reverse this policy and end this program because it doesn't address the deeper economic issues? There's a clear alternative to this: a Guaranteed Income Supplement, but between now and achieving that program in Ontario or Canada, what kinds of socio-economic problems will fester and harm people because there's no program in place to deal with them? At what point does broad political strategy give way to making short-term electoral gains, or a shift in the Overton window etc.? Reading back that comes off as concerning trolling about leftist politics, but I honestly don't have answers to these questions. It's why I'm a bit more conflicted about ORPP than I am about definitively bad things like the privatization of Ontario Hydro. I'm just not sure all government policies can be painted with the same neoliberal brush. At the same time, looking to the United States, I find myself supporting Bernie Sanders' belief that the Affordable Healthcare Act needs to be dismantled and replaced with a true healthcare option, and disagree with Hillary Clinton's argument that the AHA works well for Americans. quote:The thing is we're talking about a relatively small subset of people with shared interests and relationships that are essentially impossible to monitor. How exactly do you legislate against Saad Rafi and Andrew Olivier having a casual conversation about the ORPP's investment plan over a couple beers on a dock in Muskoka, or over a plate of foie gras at Scaramouche? I mean how do you legislate out corruption? How do you pull people in the halls of power away from the business and finance elites? Canadian society used to be much more blatant about these ties to power -- the whole system was built on it. I just don't think the fear of corruption is enough to not try to build institutions and I sort of worry that kind of attitude leads down the same path as libertarian critics of the social welfare state. Dreylad fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Feb 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:I don't know why anyone gives a poo poo about what Canada says it thinks about Israel. Our opinion will be the same as that of the US forever and ever on this issue, there's nothing to be gained by admitting that our closest ally props up this worthless regime that takes constant advantage of them and openly wants to eliminate an entire ethnic group. Criminalizing protesting is usually bad, criminalizing protesting against lovely people because the people who dislike them also tend to be lovely people is... well, lovely. This has been another edition of The Articulate Man's Guide to Foreign Policy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 04:57 |
|
|
PK loving SUBBAN posted:Speaking of how progressive the Liberal party is, how are the changes to C-51 coming? Does the law on the books still criminalize dissent? But please remember SUNSET CLAUSE and also NDP REJECTION and SUNSET CLAUSE and NDP REJECTION. This message brought to you by the Liberal Party of Canada and SUNSET CLAUSE. (this was the answer I got about C-51 from any Liberal I asked, except for Robert Falcon Oulette's academically inclined Mea Culpa which was a much fancier and slightly cringeworthy way of saying SUNSET CLAUSE over and over) Because apparently it's OK to criminalize dissent so long as someday in the future you stop doing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 19:56
|
|
